← 返回

接受门诊 tisagenlecleucel 治疗的 B 细胞非霍奇金淋巴瘤患者特征与结局

英文原题:Patient Characteristics and Outcomes of Outpatient Tisagenlecleucel Recipients for B Cell Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma.

查看英文原题

Patient Characteristics and Outcomes of Outpatient Tisagenlecleucel Recipients for B Cell Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma.

PubMed 2023/04/27(内容时间) Transplant Cell Ther Q1 · IF 4.7(JCR 2025)

分数与星级只用于站内排序 —— 不代表疗效、安全性或个人适用性。

中文摘要

Tisagenlecleucel(tisa-cel)是一种已获批的靶向CD19的CAR-T 细胞疗法,用于复发/难治性B细胞恶性肿瘤。鉴于其可能危及生命的毒性,包括细胞因子释放综合征和免疫效应细胞相关神经毒性综合征,通常考虑住院进行tisa-cel输注和毒性监测;然而,tisa-cel的毒性特征可能有利于门诊给药。本文综述了在门诊环境中接受tisa-cel治疗患者的特征和结局。一项回顾性分析纳入了2018年6月25日至2021年1月22日期间在9个美国学术医学中心接受tisa-cel治疗的18岁及以上B细胞非霍奇金淋巴瘤患者。9个代表性中心中有6个(75%)设有门诊项目。共157例患者可评估,其中93例(57%)在门诊治疗组,64例(43%)在住院治疗组。总结了基线特征、毒性和疗效以及资源利用情况。门诊组最常见的淋巴细胞清除(LD)方案为苯达莫司汀(65%),住院组为氟达拉滨/环磷酰胺(91%)。

与住院组相比,门诊组Charlson合并症指数为0的患者更多(51%对15%;P < .001),LD时乳酸脱氢酶(LDH)水平高于正常范围的患者更少(32%对57%,P = .003),内皮激活和应激指数评分更低(.57对1.4;P < .001)。门诊组任何级别的CRS和ICANS均较低(分别为29%对56% [P < .001]和10%对16% [P = .051])。42例门诊tisa-cel接受者(45%)需要非计划入院,中位住院时间为5天(范围,1至27天),而住院组为13天(范围,4至38天)。两组接受tocilizumab的中位剂量相似,重症监护室(ICU)转入率(5%对8%;P = .5)和中位ICU住院时间(6天对5天;P = .7)也相似。两组在CAR-T 输注后30天内均无毒性相关死亡。两组的无进展生存期和总生存期相似。通过仔细的患者选择,门诊tisa-cel给药是可行的,并且与住院治疗具有相似的疗效结局。门诊毒性监测和管理可能有助于优化医疗资源利用。

展开英文摘要原文

Tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel) is an approved CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor T cell (CAR-T) therapy for relapsed/refractory B cell malignancies. Given potentially life-threatening toxicities, including cytokine release syndrome and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome, inpatient tisa-cel infusion and toxicity monitoring are often considered; however, the toxicity profile of tisa-cel may be conducive to outpatient administration.

Here we review the characteristics and outcomes of tisa-cel recipients treated in the outpatient setting. Patients age 18 years with B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma who received tisa-cel between June 25, 2018, and January 22, 2021, at 9 US academic medical centers were included in a retrospective analysis. Six of the 9 representative centers (75%) had an outpatient program in place. A total of 157 patients were evaluable, including 93 (57%) in the outpatient treatment group and 64 (43%) in the inpatient treatment group. Baseline characteristics, toxicity and efficacy, and resource utilization were summarized. The most common lymphodepletion (LD) regimen was bendamustine in the outpatient group (65%) and fludarabine/cyclophosphamide (91%) in the inpatient group. The outpatient group had more patients with a Charlson Comorbidity Index of 0 (51% versus 15%; P < . 001), fewer patients with an elevated lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level above the normal range at the time of LD (32% versus 57%, P = .

003) compared to the inpatient group, and a lower Endothelial Activation and Stress Index score (. 57 versus 1. 4; P < . 001). Any-grade CRS and ICANS were lower in the outpatient group (29% versus 56% [P < . 001] and 10% versus 16% [P = . 051], respectively). Forty-two outpatient tisa-cel recipients (45%) required an unplanned admission, with a median length of stay of 5 days (range, 1 to 27 days), compared to 13 days (range, 4 to 38 days) in the inpatient group. The median number of tocilizumab doses administered was similar in the 2 groups as were the rate of intensive care unit (ICU) transfer (5% versus 8%; P = .

5) and median length of ICU stay (6 days versus 5 days; P = . 7). There were no toxicity-related deaths in the 30 days post-CAR-T infusion in either group. Progression-free survival and overall survival were similar in the 2 groups. With careful patient selection, outpatient tisa-cel administration is feasible and associated with similar efficacy outcomes as inpatient treatment. Outpatient toxicity monitoring and management may help optimize healthcare resource utilization.

论文信息

作者
Ahmed N、Wesson W、Mushtaq MU、Porter DL、Nasta SD、Brower J、Bachanova V、Hu M
单位
University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas. Electronic address: nahmed5@kumc.edu.
文献类型
综述 · 非美国政府资助研究
期刊
Transplantation and cellular therapy2023 Jul
原文标识
PubMed 37120134 · DOI 10.1016/j.jtct.2023.04.019